Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Republican proposal to extend the CARES Act, which is (of course) called the HEALS Act. It's a Republican proposal, so you know it's probably terrible, but... how bad is it? (Bad.) Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with some good news! The D.C. Circuit has granted en banc review and vacated the prior panel opinion in the Michael Flynn case. That means our amicus brief is (potentially) back in business, baby!
From there, we take down Trump's idiotic distract-o-Tweet of the day involving postponing the 2020 Election. No. He can't do this. It won't happen. Trump's a monster, but no.
Then it's time for a deep dive on the CARES Act, which includes some mystery provisions we've outsourced to you, our listeners!
After all that, it's time for #T3BE, this one a (straightforward?) question about permissible witness testimony. Remember that you too can play along by sharing this episode on social media using #T3BE.
Andrew pops in again for an interview on The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
We broke down why Trump can't cancel the election in detail in Episode 370.
The very person in charge of Homeland Security is essentially "here illegally." The upside is, though, there is a one weird trick to undo everything he has done while overstaying his tenure! And by "trick" we mean a lengthy A. Torrez deep dive, so tune in!
Before that, we talk about updates in the Flynn case and how the government is LYING about a Federal Rule.
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the women who went to law school with her knew something of what it had taken to get there. In the second part of this special series, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Justice Ginsburg’s classmates about their lives in the law after Harvard, and to Justice Ginsburg herself about what women in the law today can take from their stories.
Read Slate’s full interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg about her own time at Harvard Law School and her memories of her female classmates here. Read the full stories of each woman’s life here.
Archive of President Bill Clinton announcing his intent to nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court courtesy; William J. Clinton Presidential Library.
On June 30, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term, and is thus eligible for trademark protection. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the Court, writing that a website styled “generic.com” does not qualify it for federal trademark protection if the term has meaning to consumers; however, because “Booking.com” does not necessarily signify to consumers an online hotel reservation service, it is therefore not a generic term, and qualifies for protection. Justice Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, and Justice Breyer dissented. Joining us today to discuss this case and its implications is Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University’s School of Law
Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote. Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.